republican of north carolina is stepping down from his seat in january to become the president of the heritage foundation. next, senator lindsey grahm payr tribute to the outgoing senator. >> madam president, i met with jim demint this morning, and i, to say i was stunned is an understatement. jim indicated retiring from the senate next yearco taking over the presideny of h the heritage foundation, ah great conservative think tanks here in washington has . south carolina.

at times playing the good cop, the bad cop, but always -- always trying to work together. and what differences we've had have been sincere, and that's the word i would use about senator demint. he sincerely believes in his cause. he's a -- he sincerely believes in his causes. he's a sincere voice that people in our party look to for leadership and guidance. what he's done over the last four years to build a conservative movement, to get people involved in politics, like marco rubio, who jim helped early on in his primary i just think is going to be a great legacy. from a state point of view, we have lost one of our great champions. but he and debbie, jim and debbie have raised four wonderful children. they got great grandkids, and i know jim is looking forward to staying involved in pushing the conservative cause outside the body. he was an effective voice in the senate, whether you agreed with jim or not. he really did strongly and

passionately advocate for his positions and did it very effectively. jim made the republican party, quite frankly, look inward and do some self-evaluation. conservatism is an asset, not a liability, as we try to govern this country in the 21st century. and i look forward to staying in touch with jim and to working with him at the heritage foundation to see what we can do to improve the fate of our country so we will not become greece. no one is more worried about this nation's unsustainable debt situation than senator demint. i've seen him deinvolve over time to someone who could just not sit quietly, who had to take up the cause. in the 2010 election cycle, he was one of the strongest voices this he had would a lost our way -- that we'd lost our way in washington. jim is a kind, sincere man, an

individual who is a joy to be around. when it comes to what's going on in america, jim understands that if we don't make some changes we're going to lose our way of life. that's what's driven him above all else, to try to keep our country a place to be place where you can be anything. i look forward to working with jim in the private sector. from a personal point of view, we've had a great ride together. it has been fun. it has been challenging, and i think we put south carolina on the map in different ways at different times, and to people back in south carolina, i hope if you get to see jim anytime soon, just say "thank you." because whether you agree with him or not, he was doing what he thought was best for south carolina and the united states. at the end of the day, that's as

good as it gets. because if you're doing what you really believe in and you're not worried about being the most popular and people getting mad ought, then you can really do a good job in washington. to the people back in south carolina, everything jim has tried to do has been motivated about the changing the country. if you get a chance to run into him anytime soon in the coming day, please just say "thank you" because he did his job as he saw fit. he did what he thought was best and he didn't worry about being the most popular or taking on people when he thought he was right. i can tell you this, when it comes to me, he has always been a friend, somebody i could count on. personally we've really enjoyed our time together, and i just -- i was stunned this morning. but jim has an unlimited, bright

future in the private sector, and i will say more next year when his time comes to an end. but on behalf of all of us in south carolina, i want to say to jim and debby, thank you very much for taking time away from your family, fighting the good fight, pressing issues that you passionately believe in, and i want to thank jim and debby both for being my friend. y'all both mean a great deal to me, and i am just confident the best is yet to come for both of you. on behalf of the people of south on behalf of the people of south broke the news of jim deminute the south carolina, and dame, why did senator demanipulate decide to resign now?

>> well, i think the senator felt he probably accomplished as much as he could in the senate, at least from his perspective as, you know, frankly, an activist in the conservative movement. he made his name years ago challenging, some of the candidates the senate leadership picked to run for the ?afort, did not do that in 201, and when the opportunity opened up to run the heritage foundation, i think it was competitive. they did interview him, but ed fulner, running heritage since 1977, was, indeed, planning to step down, and it was a matter of either take this job now or pass it up. i think senator demint, heritage, a big operation, it's built into a force in conservative politics and thinking, especially, that senator demint saw an opportunity here to carry the

cause forward in a broader way than he could as the junior senator from south carolina. >> you wrote in the article today that the heritage is not just another grues roots organization, that's what senator demint told you, any ideas he'd like to see implemented in heritage? >> yes, he gave me suggestions of where he's going. heritage, as founded, developed by ed, their brilling a literally in the shadow of capital hill in washington. it is always. their intention to accept policy ideas up to the capitol open fight for them among members of congress. now, heritage, over the years, has developed about 600,000 members around the country and organizations around the country. way senator demint told me is he wants to takes base of the

analysis many washington and hook that up with the con sievetive think tanks, about 55 60 of them, he wants to identify work they are doing, plus, good things that elected officials at the local and state level do out in the states, including the possibility of democrats, who were doing things based on conservative ideas in the area of education, welfare, medicaid and so forth, and take all of that and elevate it and publicize it. his background, really, is in marketing. he ran a marketing company before politics, and he admits quite frankly that in the last election the conservative movement really didn't do an adequate job of explaning its ideas contributing to the losses nay took in the last election. >> senator demint had a great relationship with the tea party groups. what's that mean for the groups with the senator moving to ahead

heritage? >> i think it means, bill, that he may try to take them to the next level. no one would dispute, i don't think, that the tea party has, schal we say, communication problems, and if their basic idea was to reduce the level of public spend k and in the states, i think that using the force of the analysis that senator demint and analysts at harming have at their di poe sal is there is the pos protect of the conservative movement becoming more understanding to the largely public. what can you talk about the decision, might shoos for the replacement for senator demanipulate, and who lo he like. >> he has not gone there, and there's a number of people south carolina he could make.

know, whenever to be t, has to stoned in a special election in 2014. at that teem, the soon yore senator and this person willing standpointing loon election anyway. what ub interesting is in she rab for the senate in 2014 with a place holder in that job for the next two years. i think we've got the prospect of south carolina becoming awfullying over the next two years. >> read his column at wsjonline.com. thank you for joining us. >> great to be with you, bill. >> extend unemployment benefits for workers job less for 26 weeks expire in january. on tomorrow morning's "washington journal," we'll look

at the expiring benefittings. a round table with michael of the cato institute and josh bibbins of the economic policy institute. "washington journal" live every day on c-span at 7 a.m. eastern. >> why a writer's institute? >> i think a writer's institute is something that's very important within the culture. we are a culture of words, of voices. words are key to our imagination and capacity to envision things. we ourselves are not tied to print on the page sense of writing. i think that there's no other

art form so ready acceptable other than film, which we work with too, but it is something -- there's something? literature that just captures the human spirit. >> this weekend, join book tv, american history tv, and c-span's local content vehicle as we look behind the scenes of the literary life of new york's capital city, albany, saturday on booktv and sunday at 5 p.m. on american history tv on c-span3. >> leon panetta reiterated thursday that the serian government would face serious consequences if they used weapons of mass destruction against rebels. that came at a briefing, and the two discussed the impact that automatic spending cuts would have on veterans if no agreement

is reached on the so-called fiscal cliff. this is 30 minutes. >> thank you, tommy, and, first, let me thank secretary panetta for the up waiverring support to us here at va, but the men and whim who wear and have worn the uniforms of our nation. our close partnership, this meeting that we had today on their plaf has never been more important than it is today. entering the holiday season, i thank the men and women who spend holidays away from our families deafing the nation, we're all great. for the service and sacrifice. as we discussed little of what we do and what originates here, what we work on originates in dod, and that's why achieving our priorities at va requires this close and collaborative working relationship.

we have more work to do, but with president obama's strong support and guidance, we applaud the two departments closer together than ever before. we underwritten joint va dod medical facilities where they make sense, harmonizing acquisition decisions, committed both departments to a single common, joint, integrated health department record, iehr, which will be open in architecture and non-proprietary and design. veterans wait too long to see benefits earned, and, together, we streamline processes, sharing more information between departments. at av, we supports dod's implementation of the president's initiative to redesign the transmission assistance program so it's mandatory, seamless, and productive. there's a handoff from member status to ensure all who served

are prepared to transition into civilian life and that they have access to va benefits and services earned. with his executive order to improve access to mental health services, president obama continues to prove his commitment to veterans a genuine and runs deep. we are ensuring service members and veterans receive the care earned, and secretary panetta, once again, thank you for your leadership and your partnership, and i say it all the time, but veterans could not have a stronger ally in their corner. over to you. >> thank you very much, appreciate that, thank you for your friendship, and for your cooperation in this effort to do everything we can do bring departments together to make sure we serve those that serve this country.

pleased to be here again. this is part of the effort at regular consultations to make sure that our efforts to create a seem lase -- seamless approach with regards to our veterans is working. we are trying to build as the president asked us to build an integrated military and veteran support system. make no mistake, this is a real challenge. this is not something that comes easy to two very large departments, two bureaucracies with rules and regulations, but it is important to get them it work together. if service members, veterans, and their families are to get the kind of seamless experience they deserve, then our job, secretary of veterans apairs and secretary of defense, we have to

make it clear there's got to be good cooperation at all levels. this effort can want be about surf. it's got to be about serving our veterans. i'm very encouraged that the level of collaboration between the two departments, i believe, better than it's ever been in the past, yet, we have to reach much deeper into a level of collaboration that will meet needs of our veterans. we owe it to them to give them the tools they need to put their lives back together and pursue their goals whether it's getting a good education, best health care, or axeling in a new government, serving in government, or starting a business. as i said before, this is, in many ways, a national security issue. it goes to the heart of taking

care of the people that fight for us, and ensuring that we can then recruit the very best force that's possible. part of that is making sure we maintain faith with our troops and with our families. we have to give them confidence that they have world class support systems that they earned when they came into the military. today, rick and i discussed a number of steps to try to get our departments to work together to further enhance collaboration, and in particular, the discussion focused on a redesign transition assistance program or the tap program. the vow to higher heros agent mandating all service members participate in the tap program in order to pram them for life after the military. we have a large number of individuals in the military as we transition over these next

few years in terms of infrastructure, there's a lot of people going into the system, and i'm delighted to report we are satisfied that the requirements of the act having been fully tested in terms of thiveness had all 206 instalinglations ready to go on track to implement tracks for service members, interested in education, technical training and entrepreneurship by october 2013. working together, dod and va doing everything we can to streamline the disability claims process. this is one of the priorities for the president and us. one of the challenges the department of veterans awares they have to face is handling claims filed well after verett raps departed from service. to address it, dod agreed, in principle, to conduct more

details exit physicals for departing members not immediately filing a va disability claim. they need dod at their fingertips and can work quickly to process that claim. we also discussed something that is it tough challenge for both departments which is an electronic health care record integration. the ability to bring that information together across our two departments is extremely important for our medical professionals in order to provide the best care possible. this is obviously a challenging effort. this is really a tough effort, but we're continuing to work at

it and confronting a dod plan for accelerating the program to try to integrate our health care systems happen and weaponment to beat the schedules we established as targets here. we ask the plan be established by early january. in november, i had a positive meeting with military and ngo members, and i promised them i

would work with the secretary to discuss diagnosis, access to mental health, outcomes for the hidden wounds of war, and that's what we've been doing. we did it again today. i'm pleased we're ready to join the president, joint recommendations in the area within the next three months by the end of february 2013. we are dealing with suicide monk family and veterans. it's a terrible, terrible challenge that to ensure systems are equipped to give our people the help they need whenever they need to deal with unique circumstances they are confronting. let me close by confronting the professionals that care for the troops, veterans, and for the families. they work hard every day.

they are part of one family. we support one another, and i think we've strengthened our bond between the two departments. i'm grateful for rick's vision and leadership in supporting those that, as i said, served this country. america's men and women in uniform, as i said, put their lives on the line every day in order to keep this country safe. we owe it to those that fight for us to fight for them. programs to help warriors were developed out of the best intentions. too often, they fall vick time democratic victim to red tape, fall victim to bureaucracy, and the secretary of veterans affairs, the secretary of defense deeply believe that we can and we will do better? we'll do nothing less than the best services we can provide for those who serve this country.

thank you. >> [inaudible] on the da side -- >> secretary, as you mentioned, the long term detailed extra physicals, and what to do to address the backlog benefit, but there are plans to deal with the current problems, immediate problems seen over the last year with increased weight times and backlog or all the solutions? >> i would say we would have actions in progress now. i think you may be familiar with our veterans benefits management system automation of what has to this point been a paper bound process. why, in this department, where we have one the country's best

electronic, and we have been developing the tool for the last two years. it's in the process of being fielded now. we'll be at 18 of the regional offices before the end of december, and we'll be fully fielded in the system for 2013 that eliminates the backlog as we indicatessed we -- indicated we would in 2015. in the meantime, the tremendous relationship with dod will begin to affect the claims that are about to be created because we have agreed to link up both personal and medical data bases so there is not this search for information in the future. >> [inaudible] >> secretary, can you help us understand your assessment if

the country goes off the fiscal cliff, if there's sequestering, the impact on the afghanistan-iraq generation of veterans, those getting out now, all be it not a direct impact, your assessment to how it impacts them, but, secretary panetta, since president obama made a statement about syria and chemical weapons again and secretary clinton did, we understand the red line, but the world this week certainly growing concern about syria's potential use of chemical weapons. can we ask you your view on this, how concerned are you? how imminent are your concerns? should assad believe that his weapons are sheltered and safe from potential response, a potential military action by anyone? >> well, without commenting on the specific intelligence that

we have with regards to the chemical weapons, i think there is no question that we remain very concerned, very concerned that as the opposition advances, in particular on damascus, that the regime might very well consider the use of chemical weapons. the whole world is watching. the whole world's watching very closely. the president of the united states has made very clear that there will be cons qenszs. -- consequences. there will be consequences if the assad regime makes a terrible mistake by using these chemical weapons on their open people. i'm not going to speculate or comment on what those potential consequences would be. it's fair enough to say that use of those weapons would cross a

led line for us. >> [inaudible] >> intelligence we have raises serious concerns this is being consideredded. >> [inaudible] >> barbara, i think you know the president's decided that the veterans affairs is exempted from sequesteration. i would also say while we, you know, look at that as great news because the president is also grown our budget over the last four years, and so that gives us opportunity to take care of iraq and afghanistan veterans who are leaving the force, but the reason we meet frequently, i think, our 10th meeting between the secretary of defense and

veterans affairs in something like the last 20-22 months, is because we established that there is a relationship between our two departments that may not exist, and as i indicated what we work on here originates here, and therefore, this collaboration is important so if leon is dealing with issues of sequesteration, i'm concerned as well because of the likely impact that would have on veterans as they transition out of dod, even though the va piece of this has been exempted. >> harder for the generation to get out, transition into the va, to get out of the military part of the situation? >> well, that's the reason we are meeting to ensure the transition, and we anticipated

requirements, and think the next several years there's a significant number of people leaving. our meetings are all about focusing on making sure that those transitions are seemless, as seemless as we can make it, and in time, truly seamless so an individual who is raising their right hand, taking the oath of allegiance swearing into the military today, when they choose to leave in a few years down the road, whether it's three or 20, that those records are already resident in the va system. >> barbara, look, there is no question that if sequesteration happens, it will impact on those who are coming home. it's going to impact on what we're going to be able to provide them. these cuts are # across the board under this meat ax

approach developed in the sequesteration formula, and it is going to have a serious impact in terms of those coming home, the programs that serve them, the support systems we have, not only for them, but for their families. it's for that reason, obviously, that our continuing hope is that the leadership in the country comes together, and finds an agreement that avoids deficit cliff we're hanging on. >> thank you. from the va. >> [inaudible] >> so one of the big problems with these long number of disability claims is the medical records issue, and secretary discussed a long term fix, improve the medical records, and secretary panetta described, and something that helps people still in the service by having

better physicals so that when they leave the service, there's a better record of what their actual problems are, but what do you do for people in the middle,s hundreds of thousands of people who have pending claims now postponed because of the fact that the medical records either don't exist or are too complicated to come by so you can't prove or disprove there's a date. is there hope for them in what the two of you are working on? >> yeah, i think our production demonstrates we are working cases where the records are not immediately available. we go through erroneous effort so there's a fully developed claim and request make judgments. we're doing that at a rate of a million claims a year, but the challenge for us is we get a million-plus in return coming in the door. that's why this automation system, called vbms, veterans benefits management system, is key to our ability to deal with

the numbers. we'll continue to push a million claims out the door, and hopefully with vbms, we'll increase that production. we get control of the numbers. we have both the short term and long term set of solutions here. but, again, this is why these meetings and this relationship is important. >> [inaudible] >> hi, tech tear, i -- secretary, i have a question on menial health. the joint guidance on treating veterans with ptds has very tough controls in there it's use of opiates, and how concerned are you that the guide lines are not always followed at the clinical level between party and doctor, and what data are you seeing to support the fact these treatments are actually -- that the guidelines are followed.

secretary panetta, a follow-up on barbara's question. given the serious concerns, is it correct to aseem there's no thinking about preemtive action, or is it just using the weapons or could intelligence trigger something? thank you. >> you start. >> let me go with the discussion about opiates or any of the addictive drugs. again, this is why this relationship is important because there is a stock point for many of the issues, and it comes down to our being courageous enough to ask ourselves whether we have the right approach on medication, whether we over medicate. we're going to answer those questions. i have a personal opinion here, but i would like to see the results of the research, but it'll be a joint effort between the dod medical community and

the va medical community so we have a comprehensive strategy on how to deal with it. >> i think that, you know, just on that issue alone, the, you know, dealing with this problem, obviously, it involves, you know, providing prescription drugs, but at the same time, it should also provide a serious of other ways to try to assist people facing these problems, consultation, other assistance, other guidance to try to help people, you know, the ancient of others to spot the problems whether it's depression, whether it's, you know, drug addiction, whatever might contribute to problems they are confronting. clearly, we want to make sure that the prescriptions that are being provided are the ones that are sufficient to meet the problem and don't go beyond

that. on the issue of related to syria not much more to be said other than the president made very clear that the assad regime ought not make the mistake thinking somehow it can use chemical weapons on their own people and get away with that. there will be consequences. >> that's all the time we have. thank you for being here today. >> thank you, everybody. [inaudible conversations]

>> had to make a plan for the invasion of japan without considering the atomic bomb. it was estimated that the land would cost 250,000 youngsters to be killed and 500,000 of them maimed for life. >> a gran in the middle of this, i have to hop nor both, both the sacrifice and sacrifice of the american servicemen fighting their way through the pacific and of the little girl like sadoko who died as a result of the atomic boxing. it's unimagine l -- unimaginable what that must have been like, to be close to the center, where the fire ball originated and the blast. >> follow cliffton truman daniel on the journey on c-span's 3's,

the president's eldest grand son to talk about the inspiration for his trip at 9 p.m. eastern. >> u.s. intelligence officials said wednesday that the syria military head loaded the precursor chemicals for a deadly nerve gas into bombs, and, thursday, a bipartisan group of senators expressed support for the obama administration's regime over the use of bilogical weapons. senators spoke to reporters for 20 minutes. >> good afternoon, i'm here with my colleagues from the senate, senator lieberman, senator coons, and senator graham, and we are deeply disturbed by reports that assad may have weaponnized stores of chemical and bilogical agents and

prepared them for use in aerial bombs. these reports suggest they are in waiting quarters waiting to use the weapons. in true, this may men that the united states and our allies facing the prospect of an imminent use of weapons of mass destruction in syria, and this may be the last worng we get. time for talking about what to do may now be coming to a close, and we may instead be left with an awful and very difficult decision. whether to continue on the sidelines and hope a man who slaughtered nearly 40,000 men, women, and children in syria will decide not to take the next step and use far more destructive weapons to kill significantly larger numbers of people or take military action of some kind that could prevent a mass atrocity. if that is the choice we now face, it is a grave and sobering decision. we also put only the starkest

expression on the nail euroof the administration's policy towards syria where a savage and unfair fight raged now for nearly two years. the longer this conflict has gone, the worse it's gotten. all of those who argued for nonintervention of things that might not happen have now happened because we fail to intervene, and the fact is that we have now reached a point where there are weapons of mass destruction that may be used and, also, there is a significant question about the security of the weapons should assad fall. we'd like to make several points. one is that it is now up to the russians to do everything possible and maximize their influence over bashar al assad

to make sure he does not use these weapons. it is time for the united states and our allies to make it clue to bashar al assad this is an unacceptable act. it is time for us to be ready for any eventuality including the option of military intervention, but that's an option we have to be ready for. the decision can only be made by hard intelligence which, in this situation, is pretty hard to obtain, but we know, absolutely, that these weapons have been readied for use by assad's aircraft. again, i urged leaders, the president of the united states, to make whatever military preparations are necessary to show assad that the united states is fully willing and able

to impose the consequences that he is spoken of in the event these weapons are used. for deterrence to work, it has to be based on credible threat succeeding the quiet urging of the russian federation. i have been very disturbed about a lack of american leadership in the region. looking at it from bashar al assad cease view point, they saw us leave iraq, and nothing nothing but announcements of withdrawals from afghanistan. we watched al-qaeda elements able to destroy our or damage severely our consulate in benghazi and kill four brave americans. the message has to be sent that the united states is engaged, reeled disability claims to be involved, and the united states is ready to do whatever is necessary to prevent and act that could endanger or take the

lives of literally thousands and thousands of innocent people. senator lieberman. >> thanks, john. we've obviously reached a grave moment in the war that's raged in syria now for more than 20 months, and it's grave for the obvious effect that we believe the outside government has weaponnized the chemical and bilogical agents and put them in a position where they can be used fairly rapidly. this, as you look back over the 20 months of the conflict, this follows a series of events, one leading to the other which people said could not happen, and this began, remember, with peaceful demonstrations, and when assad was unable to control them or suppress them, he began to fire on his own people, and they began to defend themselves in a very unfair fight, one many of us thought we should immediately take sides on the side of freedom, and give those

freedom fighters the weapons to which they could fight. it happened, but much too late. people say, at least he's not using the air force to attack his people, but then he attacked his people from the air. now more than 40,000 killed. when we see the government of assad weaponnize chemical and bilogical agents putting them into bombs, we know that this is a leader with no limits, and unfortunately, he follows his father who proved himself capable of using the worst weapons against his own people. this is a moment in which i have found growing agitation and a willingness to see action and leadership in the united states among members of all political persuasions here in the senate. you have four members of the senate here representing the

widest range of political parties saying with one voice america has to lead. america has to lead an international coalition that will make very clear to us to assad what he may not believe yet which is if he crosses what secretary clinton called the red line and uses these weapons, chemical and bilogical, there's grave consequences, else the end of his regime. i hope, through that deterrence, we can stop him from doing so, but i also believe that we as leaders of the world, the ice, has to begin to assemble an international coalition that is prepared to do what we can to prevent assad from using those chemical and bilogical agents against his own people. we set for too long on the sidelines. we are now, as americans, getting engaged -- the need for

engagement, and more than that, urgent action is clear awe now, and we are saul saying to president obama who now stated clearly there's going to be daughter and drastic consequences if they use chemical and bilodge weapons, we're with you. there's strong support across congress if the president takes the strong action that's necessary to prevent a very, very historically horrific humanitarian disaster in syria. senator? >> thank you. we do represent a broad range of views within the senate. the republican caucus, democratic caucus, but there's a unanimous view here today that we support president obama in announcing a red line that should bashar al assad who have murdered tens of thousands of people in the last two years k

take the unthink l step -- two years, take the unthinkable step of using these weapons against his people, that there will be prompt consequences. i join this statement today to send a clear message to those from outside the halls of the capital and watch us and see divisions on policy matters, but on the matter of standing behind the president with a statement of principles that we will not stand by as assad uses weapons of mass direction against his people, something we're in a unanimous voice is, i think, the only way to effectively detour, that we can effectively call on the russians to be responsible partners, be accountable to have gotten us to this point and say we are deeply concerned about the crisis in syria and the

region. this grinding, process led to a rush of refugees, and with winter, there's other humanitarian needs to be met. there is, i hope, upcoming decision to recognize the syria national council, and i, for one, commend the work of leader ford, sec fair clinton in making progress in the diplomatic front. we have differences of opinion, but there's no difference on the view that should assad take the unpresence dented steps in this conflict of unleashing the worse weapons, there will be consequences. >> thank you. the senate just approved a trading relationship with russia, a vote on my behave and others saying we would like a better relationship with the russian people and the russian government. this is an opportunity for

russia so show that vote was justifieded, and an opportunity for russia to show the international community at large that you can be a constructive force in great time of need and a great kate as a nation to do good. i find it ironic, and the red line here literally is red. the line we're crossing is 40,000 people have died. what bothers me the most is we are all on the on the mitt of killing, not the killing i.t. itself. we have to get involved age stop this before it's out of hand. what are we talking about? we want to shape what happens after assad leaves. america not being involved in this constructive way will be hard to go to the libyan -- excuse me, the syria people when they achieve freedom say we want to help you, and they will say, how are y'all? you did little in the time of need. we have a chance in the late hours of the fight to correct that i'll presentation. from a national security point, if we don't secure the weapons,

we're going to regret it. these weapons are going to wall in the wrong hands, and there's the race now between the syria army and al-qaeda type militias that flooded into sker zoo yeah -- syria because of the lack of security. i don't know who gets there first. i hope we have a coalition to protect the weapons. what happens the day after assad leaves? he's going to go. he's going to go feet first or leave on his own, but he's going to go. after he goes, we need a plan to ensure there's a force. learn from republican mistakes in iraq. we didn't have enough troops when they need 180,000 troops to secure the place. the person who said that was fired, but he was right. if there's not a follow-on force quickly to get involved after assad leaves, itst --

it will be all hell to pay. if the president believes we need force to prevent the weapons from killing thousands more, we stand with them and we'll have a resolution on the fore of the senate seeking congressional authorization to protect us and protect that chemical stockpile if necessary by military force. final thought. you could see this coming for a very long time. leading from behind is not working. saying that you can do a lot with a light footprint does not work. how many times do we have to make the same mistake before we realize there's no substitute for american leadership, and when we get involved, be smart about it. we all accept responsibility, but turn around and do what you did in iraq and syria is unexcusable. inexcusable. thank you.

>> seeing there's a difference of opinion among the steps to take, senator mccain, you talked about use of force. senator coons, you talked about a statement from the president. congress would back a statement by the president that he finds this unacceptable? >> i misstoke or was misunderstood. if the president makes a statement, which he has, that this is a red line, then i think it's important for bashar al assad a and those who supported and encouraged him to see a united support for the president in taking necessary military action to make real on that threat. >> that's what unites us that if assad uses chemical or bilogical weapon against his own people, and president obama follows through on consequences, we are

saying, we are with you, mr. president, which is to say use military action to end the regime. i'm convinced members of congress will be with us as well. >> lieberman, support decisions to use military action, using that, preventing a step. aiming -- am i hearing that right? >> you have to ask them, but if there's sufficient intelligence that indicates there's no doubt about what assad's able to do, and i'm not saying intelligence is capable of being ascertained that, then, obviously, i think the option of preventing that needs to be exercise. one of the difficulties that we have is to have that intelligence because that's a decision that assad would make, but have no doubt in our minds

he's established all necessary preparations. >> why isn't that enough? >> well what i believe we said in common is, mr. president, we have your back, in issuing a clear threat of a response. there are some complexities in terms of what's known, what can be done, but i don't think there's disagreement that there's credible reports they have the weapons, and assad showed a murderous determination to use any violence necessary to stay in power. we all have a common concern this got to a critical point, and supporting the president is the most important. >> i think that's based on this conclusion that the best way to detour assad from using the agents he's now weaponnized against his own people is to convince him that if he does it

will be the end of the veterans gem because an international coalition led by the united states of america will strike him where he is and the elements of the regime's power are. i mean, i think it that is the best. for myself, if our intelligence points away, a feasible way for us to act, to prevent him from doing so militarily, i would support it, but this is a very complicated matter for all reasons as you know. >> finally, could i just say there's numerous sites, so a degree of confidence we'd be able to remove all of these threats where these domes are being assembled. it is a very complex issue as well, but if we are certain he's going to act, then there's no one who would say that we

shouldn't wait, that -- there's no one who would say wait until he doesn't, but can you get the hard evidence and act in a complete fashion? that's a tough part of the problem. >> senator graham, use of force resolution, what would it say, and when would yo dough -- you do that? >> well, i think what chris is saying, united behind the idea of the president as the response drsh being responsible for putting the force on the table. who gets the weapons? when he leaves, who -- where will the weapons go? do we need military force to secure the weapon sites to ensure the most red radical people in the world do not obtain the reps. if the president believes that's a necessary use of force to protect the riming in the united states, i'm forit. we have to think this thing through. it's not just about stopping the airport at the end of runway.

i don't know how far along they are. i just read the paper and hear the news like y'all are, but it's disturbing. think it through. that's what i said for a year. ..

to prevent those chemical weapons are never seen the light of day. and every member of congress i know it will be behind the president. what do you do with the weapons themselves? >> less than a pavia is that we did not have sufficient control of the armed caches that were all over the place and obviously those weapons have gone to places that we didn't want them to do. the second major issue is the increasing number of jihads is that not either that or they're the ground who are fighting very well, by the way. that issue is going to be a very serious challenge. the longer this goes on, the bigger the challenge is. >> sir, is your warning for lateral u.s. action -- [inaudible] >> the secretary of state if i understand correctly is urgently meeting with russian representatives and lots of elements for the americans the

department. one of the things i reference the potential for recognition of the new syrian national council is something we be doing that many of our allies have taken. i commend ambassador ford and secretary clinton and the president for their real leadership on the diplomatic side of trying to engage india with this granting, painful to year-long conflict. the differences are far less important than the commonality between which you were from all four of us, which is the president has made a clear declaration, which we will back. thank you. >> former national security adviser to vice president cheney criticized president up on a thursday for the with the syrian civil war. he's joined by searing activist at a forum hosted by the foundation for defense of democracies. this is 50 minutes.

[applause] >> by improper words. i'll see if you quit using them will go on to the discussion with panel. ambassador ford covered a lot of ground. reposting that had time about the progress of the fighting around the airport in damascus. the chemical weapons question, the question of bashar al-assad leaving. i want to answer a few questions i hope we can all address. one is the real acceleration in recent days. a lot of folks have been renewed and i guess the question i would first pose is, we been here before? in july with the bombing in damascus, there is a similar this was the end game. so have we underestimated the showers strength? secondly, if clinton reaches

some agreement, how much leverage does russia have? and maybe too late for that anyway. and then, more technical question, which came up briefly before about the chemical weapons, if he does use chemical weapons, how exactly to reuse them, what are the mechanics of that? and the question i thought about for a long time with regards to syria, assuming post bashar theory of remains very chaotic which is a safe assumption come is in the iranian revolutionary guard the actor best prepared to take advantage of the situation? if after all had about a part in iraq on that front. how does the u.s. managed that? how do we do with that is not just the higher gc, that the terrorist groups.

i'm not sure that's going to help teach at a deal with questions. particularly the day after the project you must have thought about a lot of these questions. so why don't we begin with you. >> thank you. your question is about the day after project quite >> escom ambassador ford spoke a little bit about the transition we expect to take place. according to our best hopes, how do you deal with moving towards elections are some consistent assembly if you've got actors, russia angling to maintain his sport and the mediterranean. you've got a whole variety of jihad e-groups still working on the ground. >> so let me just explain a little bit about the day after project. this is a project led and directed by syrians.

some 45 of us from an ice area and from outside syria. we did receive funding from the united states institute of peace and the chairman asked ibp institute for security and political affairs. we have treated six subjects. economic restructuring and social policy, rule of law, transitional justice, security sector reform, a lack of assistance and constitution design. in each of those areas we provided recommendations to the transitional government. we have not laid out a template nor blueprint for the future. they are merely recommendations they hope the transitional government of syria will adopt. in addition to the work we've are begun, we are entering phase two, where we update the document. we incorporate feedback from syrians, particularly those inside the country and we issue

a new person of the documents. vincent s-sierra overcapacity, let alone for several months have escalated to the point that now we have entirely new dynamics. within a day after, we do not address foreign policy issues. we do not address issues of foreign armed agents on the ground. we do with the security or reform. we call for dismantling of the opera system in syria, but we do call for a gradual debaathification as opposed to an immediate one within the government. >> what other members address the question of how to deal with extremist groups and violent groups and if you could talk about the one issue that came out up previously with the potential for extreme likelihood of retaliation against the isle

of wight in this post bashar region. >> one of the things i've written about as well is the difference between the iranians and the united states has been that the iranians have looked to game out various contingencies and possibilities in syria. whether assad falls or assad contracts. one of the things they've done is build up the so-called paramilitaries, these isle of wight militias that used to be like games and now have become almost like storm troopers for the regime. with the help of hezbollah to turn into to much worse.bushed militia with the help of the cuts force as well. so they .., but then they looked to other possibilities.

i syria began to fragment into various regions controlled by different militias, they have looked to alliances of convenience with groups such as the pkk, the courtesy and working party. they've used the pkk in order to pressure turkey against interference in syria. but this relationship opens the door for future collaboration whereby the ukrainians could create various islands of influence with a number of militias. so you have in the coastal region with a 70 predominate essentially a 70% for iranian and russian support. since i've started thinking about these things, there have been developments there, too because the rebels have been able to make inroads into the

alawite coastal, on the western coast of syria. especially from the north where the rebels have been very strong and in the provinces. that made inroads into the alawite coastal mountain take hold of some alawite villages. when they got there there wasn't anyone there comes the religions were abandoned. this comes up again with regard to the state of the alawite in the future in syria appeared a lot of their males, recent report by david enders said this but there was a lot of their males, fighting age males have been recruited. a lot of them are dying so there's a big social upheaval aside from the retaliation they could face. the ukrainians have gained this out. i'm not sure yet what policy the united states takes or has

prepared to the scenario. >> any say quick word about hezbollah and their intent with the iranians? >> absolutely. you notice in beirut as well they are on the ground in syria, especially areas directly bordering lebanon. so in the city of homes and other towns in the surrounding, it has been on the ground but we know that because a stream of data hezbollah fighters has been going back to lebanon. we know they are holding funerals and they have this phrase to describe the city center. they say that they died performing their g hardy duty. they don't say where, but everybody knows where they are. and pretty much admitted they are in the area in a recent speech. they are very much invested in this. assad is a strategic ally of

hezbollah surveyor on the ground to help them. sort of transforming it into and alawite militia into the patronage is something they are preparing for a worst-case scenario. say someone does this control. if they can maintain a based on the coast, bordering lebanon, then at least they will cut their losses and maintained iranian foothold in syria, where is the primary u.s. object is, on humanitarian issues aside, the primary u.s. objective is really to break the arabian alliance. so then having footholds with the alawite on the coast with the pkk in the north and northeast to be a setback. >> yes. >> i agree with everything that tony has said, but i would mention that sort of retreat to

the alawite heartland and maintaining that level of iranian strategic relationship, should be no doubt that the collapse of the assad regime in damascus, the great historic capital of the islamic world will be a big defeat for the iranian regime for hezbollah, but symbolically as well as in terms of their strategic rooms for maneuver in the region. having said that, i think it's absolutely true depending on the way back and comes in damascus and the bubbles of chaos that were likely to see their acting chewing the iranians in the united states, the ukrainians hands down are better able to operate in that environment and take whatever marginal advantage they can, not only with alawite and kurds, but everybody who remembers the experience in iraq with al qaeda. sunni jihad is as well,

particularly vis-à-vis the united states or the surrogate the israelis. that is a real concern. it's one of the real tragedies of this entire affair sobol i think ambassador ford is absolutely correct by working very hard and diligently to bolster moderates, to help them both politically and materially to succeed and to win the day in syria and defeat the assad regime is absolutely the way to go and to have done that as quickly as possible. unfortunately despite ambassador ford's best efforts, my sense is that it's not really been the administration's policy, at least in practice over the last 20 months. therefore, we are perilously close. i must say i'm quite despairing

that the window has almost closed in terms of an effect of u.s. ability to intervene in a meaningful way and have our interest in voice represented in a post to sawed syria and achieve anything that looks like the kind of stable political transition is dilution that ambassador ford discussed. they were quite worried. the inclination as a former policymaker is even when despairing to they can't sit on their hands and do nothing. they are to develop policies to make the best of what is an increasingly bad situation which the u.s. options to be a positive force for good in post-assad syria are narrowing by the months certainly if not by the day. >> and i pursue further on that. if you could wave a magic wand, would be the thing you would do

if it's not too late? what role should the u.s.a. right now? >> yakima situation as ambassador ford said i have been in favor of arming the rebels and i was quite early on in favor of arming the rebels if only to build our influence to achieve much greater progress on the ground, to bolster moderate forces antiskid cheeses out of forces like the russians. we don't have any leverage over the russians should be a positive force. the winner of 2012 would have been by putting the russians in a position where they believed and i don't leave they felt that are perhaps in recent days they've come to that conclusion, but i don't think it was their conclusion up till now. i think about the progress we seen on the ground, i'm not sure i have enough information come that i'm not sure what beans anymore are a serious problem.

planes are beginning to go down. airbases are beginning to fall. the extremist element in the site, particularly as a vanguard of the troops in the up position in seizing territory do worry me a great deal. whether or not we put in place procedures and processes, whether the intelligence community could do that at this point were we genuinely feel like we have control of the weapons to know what's going to happen post-conflict to those weapons. i don't have a lot of faith will be a lot to. so i am left in what is a very unhappy and unsatisfactory position of believing that when ambassador ford talks about a focus on moving relatively rapidly and quickly to develop a diplomatic option in the real diplomatic option. i sense is the u.s. has subcontracted to diplomacy out for far too long.

and when you were back in the opposition, said scott turrentine diplomacy out to kofi annan was almost a certain loser. now the opposition is making real gains they've got something that begins to look like a least a valuable political umbrella in terms of this new syrian national coalition. given that there may be prospects that the russians are more worried than they were before. i think the united states is really got to think seriously now if it's not going to exercise leadership, freedom fighters who were principally fighting for dignity and freedom, not fighting for the black islamic member of al qaeda initially. if you're not going to do that, at least you exercise at every leadership can diplomatically and put together between some elements of the regime, not

including assad and there may be unpalatable things that need to be done in the assad in the u.s. may play more of a leaning forward ruled that ambassador suggested. this scene if there is not a deal between some remnant of this regime that represents the key state structures and that opposition force both outside and inside syria that we back in belief can be a force in serious future and see whether or not you can't marginalize an otter rush to chaos in damascus. >> i just wanted to mention a couple things. as ambassador ford has said, the revolution started out very, very peacefully with ambassadors out in the country every friday in every day. in fact, they still do this. it's very important for us to distinguish between the free syrian army, which is

principally defectors from the regime's army and later civilians who took up weapons in self-defense. between the free syrian army i actually don't like the term rebels because we have men and women now who have it from a government that you on those very brutal. they are there to defend civilians. they have defined a code of conduct, so we need to not treat them like renegades. and i don't want to defend she hottest by any stretch of the imagination, but those are a direct result of inaction on the part of the rest of the international community. you had serious been slaughtered on a daily basis of the world offered his face point plan that was violated before the ink was dry on that plan.

so desperate people have resorted to desperate measures and i think we need to be very conscious of that as we worry about the black flags. >> ammar, did you have a -- >> it's interesting listening to the conversation so far. i think the ability of any actors, including the opposition itself to influence is better. right now we call them b-bravo jihadists militias. we do have this impact the most of afghanistan. there is no systematic effort trying to bring them down. but in fact, perhaps right now in turkey, a representative of the majority of rebel factions, including -- [inaudible] are trying to draw a common

parallel. whether they succeed or not remains to be seen. but even if they did that, i'm not really sure this will stick for long because once a side falsehood damascus, once he leaves and goes to a alawite enclave or is killed doesn't matter, but we then have to fight for relevant, which grupo control weather. the political opposition does not carry enough weight in federal groups to be able to bring cohesion into the process and have a situation under control. so i anticipate there will be a period of chaos still post assad and might devolve into a situation not getting alawite to get kurds, but different rebel groups against each other. and that is my fear. it's not of course something i

anticipate, but it's not something that i want. the reason i was pushing my colleagues do not position to go beyond simple recommendations, but i wanted a declaration this because i knew when you go into the specific and details of the regime and the responsible aspects, a lot of things on the ground will have shifted that we are going to deal with warlords could without addition of how we are going to reassure different communities and make sure the boundaries between the groups and accept that we are going to go to this. i'm a transitional basis until we are in a position to put everything back together.

without having addition for that, it's very difficult for me to see this. situation been stabilized. so what i'm afraid this while people are being optimistic that assad might be about to collapse and damascus will fall. after the fall of damascus, not much would change in terms of the actual dynamics on the ground. there is still the violence. there was so the bloodshed. there will still be robed militias and without a plan an incredible leadership and vision and involvement by the international community in a process that will put all this together, we must lose control for a prolonged period of time. so that's how unfortunately i see things developing of the situation in syria, rather than towards a sort of a more acceptable, transitional plan. and i think extremism will grow

for a while to come. it is unfortunate that this is my prediction is that i see this happening because as rafif pointed out, and earlier intervention would've really played a role in containing the situation and you would not be dealing with these scenarios right now. but at this stage, syria is going to be problematic for many years to come. >> seems he's got a lot of time in the middle east in which case scenario often turns out to be the most realistic one. what other members of the panel went to talk specifically about the coalition formed the doha, strengths, weaknesses? >> i think rafif has probably been more involved in the doha process. the reason i felt optimistic and believe this is a good step is

despite some of the criticism i would lay out soon is that the leadership of it, [inaudible] among others or people that you know. there are people with dynamics for many years have a lot of credibility. they have been there and they are due to fires in the sense they view the different segments of the population. their presence has really made this group very credible to us. so that's why i think in a sense we see a new opposition dynamics involved in these figures. on the other hand we see many of the same old faces that were cut from my perspective at least cut off from the ground or have agendas to revolutionaries wanted in the beginning of the ground. they are still there.

we have almost 50% of the membership are islamists were close to the muslim brotherhood and i think this is far, you know, an excess of their actual size on the ground. so we do see political process they really, to me as representative of of the aspirations and that is problematic for me. having said this, we really cannot keep breaking bodies and coming up with new ones. we have good leaders involved in this and they are aware of the problems within the structure of the coalition. so there is a possibility with the final push towards the adoption by the coalition of a clear blueprint for the future that this will become a more capable body, able to face the transitional challenges ahead. >> yeah, just to make a quick observation from the u.s.

perspective, which gives me some degree of hard i suppose is the fact even at this very late point in november of 2012 that when the u.s. had its mind to doing something with regard to the opposition, even if it's mostly external opposition as ambassador for a suggested the exercise significant muscle to push out for alleged obsession a syrian national council that does have some element that are much more credible and frankly much less threat to to our interests and i would suggest to the interest of a great deal of syrians. it would make me wistful for what kind of band willing to exercise that leadership and muscle much earlier in the process. but it also suggests there is still some reserves left in the u.s. tank to try and move this in a more positive direction.

>> i don't know where to start, but apparently we only have two minutes for question and answer. one of the criticisms from syrians has been that the u.s. had been battling in the formation of the national council and in bringing about its demise. not supporting the actual revolutions is something we can debate later. with regard to the national coalition, i agree completely with ammar. the coalition has many problems. but at this major problems is when men are entirely underrepresented in a coalition that aims to represent the syrian people. after all, women make up 50% of the syrian population. so that is something we need to be working on. but we cannot keep looking for new bodies to represent us. we are urging the united states to formally recognize the

national coalition is the sole legitimate representative of the syrian people. we are working very hard with the leadership of the coalition to make adjustments to perhaps introduce quotas as a temporary measure to make sure we are adequately represented at the syrian society and we want to push forward to begin assuming functions of this state is supporting the local councils that are cropping up. >> okay. we need to go in q&a. one quick thing before we start but i hope it's some point in this day someone will address the question of, how you mention the hope that some remnant to see would be involved in an effort to coalesce from government. ..

excellent description ever what at least that body would like to see the united states stand for with regard to syria. perhaps i'd like to comment the panelists to see what the bipartisan unanimous measure might add to the clarity of the u.s. vision at blueprint for what we want to see next presending from all the shall we say tactical and diplomatic and other considerationings we have been discussing. >> i'd like to take that one. >> i haven't seen the act with regard to american policy. one of the things i have criticized in this regard is that what is really the strategic vision for the u.s. in syria? why do we care about syria? and why what are our

objectives? those two things have been unfortunately very blurry throughout the last two years or almost two years. the contention is there are essentially throw major objectives for the u.s. one is to break the ire began alliance nap is from a stag gi point of vow inspect is the primary objective the second objective would be to prevent syria from turning in to either a continued island of influence for iran or for other u.s. adversaries be they, you know, al qaeda-type groups or what have you. and the -- but the important thing is to keep the prioritization of this list of objectives in place. and finally, it's the contain the failure of the syrian state from spilling over to the ally and regions jordan, turkey and

israel and the humanitarian obviously a separate issue. on the first three, when there has been a sort of an articulation of a strategy, the -- the place in the priority list has been unfortunately inadequate. for instance we're hearing now, you know, the attempt to sideline islamic sunni-islam groups in syria. >> okay. these are either adversary or potential adversary. you don't start building a house from the rooftop. you first achieve the primary, the assad rechemo and the weakening of iran and you move over. in this case, unfortunately, you know, this vision that was in terms of placing syria to a broader strategic frame wok for

the region specifically iran has been lacking. >>let see question here. >> thank you. what is most unsatisfactory. -- [inaudible] los angeles. ftd supporter. what seems most unsatisfactory in the question weapons and u.s. policy and lack of the u.s. policy and -- [inaudible] is syria. is this enormous question of the chemical weapons. has been hanging over us for months. it's an emerging crisis now whether assad using them or not. there's a vast -- put in perspective syria is first or second in the world in the chemical arsenal. it's the competitor being

russia. are we blithely assuming whatever need they won't want the chemical weapon ease and call us to destroy the weapons for them. are we blithely assuming this? are we blithely asiewlging nothing. are we blithely assuming that al qaeda will get some of them or hezbollah won't get them. whether go the policy or nonpolicy on this. i've been worried from day one of this. if i may we are blithely assuming nothing. i think what i have seen on part of the administration is the actual lack of vision. it's also building on the statements. there are are in raytives and there's continuous analysis. there's a law of people expressing worry about potential

use of chemical weapons or the revolution of the complex and wider regional melt down. but i really have not seen anybody describing or trying to describe a policy to contain that. even know we hear president obama, for instance saying say, or saying, you know, don't think about using chemical weapons. we aren't going to allow. what are the consequences? what are they going to do? is there a -- [inaudible] that can do something? they are saying [inaudible] are needing to secure the wnt. where they going to come from? putting together an international force to ensure this is what is going to happen? do they want to intervene or not want to? i don't understand it anymore. they called on assad to depart and they have not adopted a policy toker ensure the

departure. they are calling on him 0 not to use the chemical weapon. there is no policy. they are warning there are consequences. you cannot see anything on the table. i think there is an absolute lack of vision on part of the administration as how to handle this situation. and this is something that is has been troubled for quite a long time. to see they have not come close to produce something that made a difference on the ground. they worked with the coalition and opposition groups to put together a national coalition and would not have happened without the involvement. it's god. they are not working with the rebels. they are coming on their own. trying to organize in other words to make a position and take a position under they want to be under the coalition or not. it's happening separately from anything that the obama administration has anything to do with.

they are not part of the process. the rebels will make a difference on the ground. if [inaudible] try to adopt a strategy to secure the wng site, you need the rebels to cooperate with you. you need to be on the good side. right now the protesters in syria, all of them are raising a flag saying we don't want them on the ground in syria. if you have peace keepers on the ground they are going to ensure that the al waits -- [inaudible] in the country has been quited. it's new mantra right now. two years ago, people wanted international intersex. they -- interventions. they were expressing a lot of feeling of friendship for the international community. now they don't want them to be involved on the ground. how are we going [inaudible] we don't want to to. we are getting so to scare space

there's a lot of radicalization because there's a lot of frustration, you know, with the people have been betrayed and extremist forces to take over. i don't have an answer to that dpoapt say that, you know, i really expect the situation 0 to grow worse simply because there's no vision on part of nip. i blame the opposition for the lack of vision on a [inaudible] i blamed obama administration on certain issues. we are left in a situation where a process is being left to evolve on the own. nobody seems to be that worried about the consequences. for some reason even though by all mean in this case will be dire. by any significant, you know, by any simple exversion of racial analysis we realize that if you let the thing evolve on the own, there will be dire consequences for everybody. yet there's no policy. >> if i could make a comment,

please. i appreciate your concern for what happens to the chemical weapons next. but please know very, very well that nobody's fears the use of chemical weapons more than the intended victims who are sitting ducks in syria today. they have heard about -- they heard the reports that assad is moving chemical weapons. they heard the reports that troops are simply wait physician an order to fire. these are the people at stake. if we have 50,000 dead today because of regime bombing, you can do the math and al calculate the a. devastation that can take place within minutes. what is the united states going do with the redlines. message are syrians are saying, as long as you use barrel bombs or cluster bombs or white froes for or are tiller i are shelling

you're okay. adopt use chemical weapons. we also to remember that the madman about mafia willing to kill 50,000 of the own people will not hesitate to create further devastation. we also need to remember that in [inaudible] after this have complained about the use of chemical weapons. doctors have been putting together video footage of victims of chemical warfare. the assad regime used chemicals in 1982 in the ha mamas consider. there's a failure of u.s. policy. every step of the revolution was predictable. and the united states failed to take the appropriate measures. [applause] tony, were you waiting? >> my take on the chemical

weapons is slightly different. i think they constitute a last and formidable. i adopt think he will be handing them out. i think instead , i mean, using them domestically is one thing. i'm talking more sort of with regard to the neighbors. the united states did develop. there are being set up batter. there's a request for patriot batter for turkey to protect turkey from precisely such attacks. reallies -- israelis have reported i don't know if you saw a recent report, they have the contingency plans. they discuss with the jordanian as well. i think do with the bombing incinerating sites, and the united states has been rumored to have done similar military exercises with the jordanian as well for the purpose. there are increasing reports,

british special forces and french have been involved in this with the turks to develop some sort of mechanism to incinerate them. they are not easy to do, right. they are multiple component that need to be brought together. they are unstable and sensitive to climate issues, temperature. and stuff like that. last time the syrian regime tried to weaponize them. it blew up killing a number of north korea scientist helping them put them on missiles and it wasn't -- it's not easy. it's not like pulling up, you know, a gun and firing. it's a much more complicated process that does give some room for the united states to act. but i think assad wants to do this in order to remain as an interlocker. he grabbed u.s. attention with it. the first time president obama made a statement about syria in any way was when assad about the chemical weapons. and then the following

statement, the message of the defense department in particular has been counter productive. we want assad to safe guard the storehouses. well, do you want to topple assad or you want him to be in droll safe guard the weapons? so he understood that this is a tbar -- bargaining chip. it's a good thing to negotiate. he's not about to let it go. it's behind the whole chemical weapons episode which is a fellow had an interesting mind today. it's a mind game between the u.s. and regime and unfortunately the u.s. was playing it badly. >> yeah. i would just i wish i was -- telling me he won't actually deploy them in extremist. i hope that is the case. i given how absolutely horribly he's played a lot of this conflict over the last twenty months, and the way he's managed his own affairs and the way he

managed affairs before that. some might say he's been clever. my sense is he read the scripted of his own eventually demise one way or the other. i think he's been stupid and foolish. i don't put it past him that can happen again depending how he feels. i actually take obama seriously on this. i haven't on a lot. i certainly haven't with regard to his desire to get rid of assad. that put the deterrent effect warning to assad the effectivenesses which the u.s. handle the last twenty months the lack of consequences of us for killing tens and thousands of syrians and destroying the country. i can imagine his own mind lead him to believe, let me go ahead and test the proposition. let's roll the dice and using chemical and see what the u.s. will or will not do.

on the other hand indian the reason why at the public level the u.s. might want to talk -- not want to talk about specific consequences in military movement and options that are being assembled and put in to place. the kind of planning i think is going on with the israeli. i think sir why -- syria is important. i think there is a -- i would mention. i take seriously what secretary gates said yesterday at least on something like this in such a forceful way about the kinds of consequences that will be -- that assad probably misraids. it won't be serious consequences. i have heard and i understand and tony discussed the israel plan for incineration bombing of these things. i haven't seen a discussion of u.s. preemption to go after these weapons if in fact that is technically a feasible operation

without the kind of subsequent dispersion of the chemical to surrounding populations and across borders. i haven't seen a serious analysis done on that. i'm told it's technically difficult but feasible. to scare the exat the present time we see more of the kinds we we have seen of chemicals getting mixed one they are mixed they have sixty-day lifespan. that i think some serious discussion about the feasibility and capability the united states or allies might preempt to take out the chemicals in a reasonably safe way in term of u.s. interest and israel interest and the interest of the other ally of the region. that's something we have to look at seriously. i do think it's right at the top of our priority list as a country concerned about global order. >> i think we are pretty much the end of the time. do we have time for the last question or no?

>> very quick question. this gentleman here. >> [inaudible] a concerned citizens. i'll pose the question to -- [inaudible] why should america to the agenda if it's clear that saudi arabia and turkey support islamists in syria. they are raising the black flag. america is confronting the black flag in afghanistan. why should we support this? >> can i just quickly say on the gentleman. something i want to say and back to the point here and i'm reminded of, you know, america. doesn't give enough support. sometimes we metal too many. it's sort of a damned if you do and again, syrian opposition has a lot of problems. but we won't get in to that too many about why americans might really get frustrated with the process. i would say on the chemical weapons wmd and understand that

syrian opposition doesn't want to talk about the foreign policy or national security policy if they get in power. maybe they talked about what they would do with the syria's chemical weapons. if they have i don't know what the official position is are with regard to syria's chemical weapons. as an american who is being asked to endorse and help and get behind this effort that has lots of questions about it seems to me that's a minimum we can require as a very clear coherence statement renouncing the wmd stockpiles and calling for a process in which the international community will actually secure and get these wmd out of syria for good. >> let me try to answer the question and maybe address one of your -- in saudi arabia as governments have not supported the black flag. individuals who have money who see a desperate situation and see an opportunity for

mercenaries to enter how funded the -- helped funded the black flags. why should the united states support the coalition? the lack of support for an opposition movement indicates continued -- the world need an alternative to assad. we feel we have provided won. we have had demonstrations around the country for several friday calling on the world to recognize the national coalition because we as syrians do. we are saying this is our legitimate representative. world, back at you. the united states is not in a damned if you do damned if you don't position. they're in a damned if you give a lot of lip service but don't take specific action. the revolution is one of freedom, dignity and democracy. and the united states had been upheld as a model for these goals. so many, many, many syrians feel completely failed. >> i'm talking about the

specific question of the opposition and too much mussel, too much -- muscle too much metaling in the opposition and opposition in that point of in time. incoherent and incapability and detached from the situation on the ground. thank god the united states and the international community got involved or it wouldn't be at the point where we discussed today, i'm afraid. >> we have to wrap it up now. thank you to the panelist for the great discussion. [applause] [inaudible conversations] we have lunch next door. [inaudible conversations] explore the history and literary culture of new york's capital city on booktv on c-span2 and american history tv on c-span 3. tonight on c-span2, the speech

by egyptian president morsi his nation calling antigovernment protest. that's followed by two event from the foundation for defensive democracy forum. first a debate on the impact of elections and muslim countries. and then an examination of iran's human rights record. extended unemployment benefits for workers who have been job less for more than 26 weeks expire in jan. the expiration is part of the so-called phis fiscal cliff. we look at the unemployment benefits. our first gets is josh boak. and michael -- washington journal is live every day on c-span at 7:00 a.m. eastern. we have had the explosions

of knowledge. but we have not coordinated care and these all these services we have end up having so many cracks that the cracks are as harmful as the diseases that we're treated. so you to step back and ask, you know, are we hurting people overall? on a global level? what are we doing sometimes? and of course now we have the institute reinforcing 30% of everything we do may not be necessary in health care? when we step back, 30% of all the medications we prescribe, the test we order, the procedures? in is something, i think, which is for the first time really being called out as a problem. >> dysfunction in the u.s. health care industry. dr. marty on what hospitals won't tell you the latest is "unaccountable" saturday night at 10:00 eastern on c-span2.

in the address to his nation, following days of anti-government protests and violence, egyptian president mohammad morsi said he would form a new assembly to raid another constitution if the current draft is rejected. the major vote on december 15. the 30-minute speech courtesy of english. >> translator: i truly and rightfully feel responsible for the rights of the egyptian citizens. i also feel my duty toward him whether he is in support or opposing me. simply for the reason that my fellow citizens are one body. that cannot be separated or torn apart. without nidis tings, they cannot be separated and the face 77 security and safety.

and well being. i repeat, they are not discriminated on the basis of religion, political affiliation or the stance adopted on either side. the recent incident, the painful ones, under a cover of political difference where it should in the first place be resolved by -- [inaudible] where it is reached to the interest of the homeland by coming down and responding to the will of the people. the will of the people, which for many years, many years of oppression, persecution,

injustice, corruption, -- [inaudible] election, and use of all means of [inaudible] again as citizens by the regime that has been by all the figures and it cannot return. the regime cannot return to the home soil of egypt again. again, i repeat we all must -- [inaudible] of our differences and live up to the will of the people. the interest of the homeland [inaudible] by violence and the will of people cannot be suppressed by angry crowds. however, this can be terriblized by wisdom, prudence, and vennty that gives us an opportunity for informed -- [inaudible]

insightful decision where the minority reach an agreement with the majority. [speaking in arabic] >> translator: the minority response to the majority join hands together to realize the supreme national interest transcending above personal or private interests [inaudible] political affiliation or [inaudible] inclination. this is what all i hoped to see in the homeland, egypt, our beloved country. egypt, our beloved country beloved to all of us each and every one of us; however, we were fail -- [inaudible] with where i pray that god will guide us through.

[speaking in arabic] >> translator: i pray that god will save us the repercussions of this sort. the great egyptian people, you are aware of all of your value, history, civilization, and sacred beliefs. your aware of the surroundings in the world at this age for the same degree of your greatness to the same degree of your ability to stand back on your feet. to the same degree that challenges will be. i address it to those who oppose me and our opposing me with

dignity. and nose also came to defend -- [inaudible] what their live -- [inaudible] i say clearly and openly. why we respect the right of freedom of separation that is guaranteed to one and all i cannot -- [inaudible] i cannot tolerate any willful act of vandalism or killing. with premeditation and purpose or to intimidate the unsuspected civilian or vandalize public or private property or insight to

subversion again is the -- [inaudible] those -- [inaudible] persistent on the tuesday last, december 4th, 2012, the day before yesterday, some of the protesters resorted to violence -- i salting the moted motor candidate of the president and the same -- one or the driver support the grave injuries and has been hospitalized for who reasons? [speaking in arabic] >> translator: the administration mean assault property, private and public, that is mean, damaging, public

-- [inaudible] does it mean -- pretension or smearing egypt's image? this cannot be tolerated. this cannot be deemed peaceful acceptable, administration. -- demonstration. it is marked by violence which he witnessed by those who have infiltrated the well-informed crowd. this cannot go unpunnished. yesterday it -- [speaking in arabic] >> translator: it was worse for peaceful demonstrators were assaulted by the infiltrate.

[inaudible] the assault by weapons and this is something new to see tsh [inaudible] firearms being used. [speaking in arabic] >> translator: and molotov bombs. yesterday, wednesday, december 5th, 2012, six egyptian youths lost their lives, and more than 700 men and women suffered injuries including nineteen suffering the fire wounds, 32 cartridge shots, insighting

violence perpetrating terrorism on unarmed civilians continued up to this morning. security forces have arrested more than 80 persons who have been implicated in the act of violence use of firearm. public piers persecution [inaudible] others underway on the initiative of the public persecution. it is regretful to say that some of the detained have -- [inaudible] direct links with those who are associated or associate themselves to the political parties. some of those who were -- [inaudible] using arms perpetrating acts of

violence are or were hired for money. this was the outcome of integration and their own confessions. they also confessed to those who provided them with money and arms and those who supported them. this has happened earlier at the early interim stage and the past we used to hear about the defense column and the egyptian -- [inaudible] the unfortunate incidents, and those unfortunate incidents of the people's assembly and the cabinet of ministers premises and those of the stadium. none was able to reach this

column. those who were arrested more than 80 persons carrying and using arms -- persons who were implicated and associated to them that confessions given by them under integration will be disclosed by the public persecution as investigations are underway as we speak to reveal the truth and those unfortunate incidents. to identify the perpetrator, the investigators, and those who have funded them with egypt or without. i repeat, within or without egypt. i openly and frankly, clearly

through clear distinction by the force of blow between politicians and paid yachtic figures who are reporting certain stances and have reservations against the constitution. i separate them all as this is a natch really matter. it is a matter acceptable and agreed upon. this is a way opposition should take place. i separate them and those who spend their money, which gathered by the corruption by working all the -- for form

regime that commended crime together with those i state i separate the opposition from those who spend their money to the homeland and destroy our structure. therefore, i will open minds and open hearts to prepare to communicate with the opposition of lying firmly and harshly in a manner that gairn tees the security of the homeland. the the presidential decoration are november 21st, 2012, came to give rise to certain reservation and opposition. and this is acceptable.

hour, those who have taken advantage of the situation hiring -- [inaudible] buying arms, time has come to be penalized to be punished by the law. today i would like to reintegrate that the fact that made me hands down the presidential degree are represented in the gravity threaten the security and well being of the homeland. the [inaudible] the battle that took place during the demonstration.

the one who was exsill rated. he was holding sacred meeting in the office. together with what it was taking place in the meetings, this was merely an example of the many facts that caused me to hand down the presidential degree. i declared earlier and here i reintegrate today accident securing presidential decrees cannot mean or cannot be meant from dangering duty or preventing citizens to challenge

decisions, resolutions or laws. the presidential decree cannot be used only in matters touching the state sovereignty, the sovereignty exercised by the state as our only regime. the identification and [inaudible] of these acts is clearly established by the judiciary of egypt. the decoration safe guard jew that safe guarded rights and liberties and today it is invited with all respects to continue to discharge the

emphasis it will continue to safe guard the state and execution andsoeverty. i have all confidence in the [inaudible] it seems my duty to safe guard the homeland to work relentless for the security of all the citizens that caused know hand down the presidential decree it was my duty to exercise the acts of sovereignty to safe guard the state institutions against any tramperring, vandalism, or, [inaudible conversations]

ly continue to discharge any duties no matter what the pressures are or the circumstances are. speaking in that same degree about this. this was nothing but to safe guard the security of the country and the property against any [inaudible] moremore than measures taken by those who cannot be deterred. if some of the opposition see this to be in conflict with the established principles of law, i wished to clarify what is already established. if this -- [inaudible]

gives rise to concern, i do not insist for this to remain simply for the reason that the essence is already established. i do not insist to include this article if this is agreed upon by other political parties. in any event, the presidential decree will come to an end together with its legal ethics once the -- [inaudible] referendum are declared whether positive or nothing. negative i truly meant by the decree to arrive at the point where we can complete the [inaudible]

paving the way for the great people of egypt to have to say after that once the people have their say, no one will have any review and we will respond to the will of the people. i myself together with other patriotic egyptians have exhausted great amount over the past two weeks and may all these unfortunate incidents we intent this time to arrive at agreement in all the matters giving rise to concern among all the egyptians. we reach an agreement with a number of political figures. the egyptian and some leaders together with other patriotic

figures concerned with our homeland indicating the effort and time considering the future of the country and the citizens. all of this has brought about an open invitation for our comprehensive dialogue. an invitation i give to all political figures and leaders, the use of this -- [inaudible] key legal experts and tourists to come together on saturday, next december 8th, 2012, at -- [speaking in arabic] >> translator: at 12:30 hours afternoon. at the presidential headquarter and all those to arrive at the comprehensive agreement and consensus bringing the nations under one world where we can

abandon differences, accept different opinions, and reach a consensus. consider all the proposal and recommendations including without limitation to don't form gaza, the election act and the mechanism of holding election. also, among the interest to be considered the road map land following the -- [inaudible] whether in positive or negative by the people. the recent unfortunate incident in the past two days cannot go

down the drain. and those who have provided funds and firearms in instigated violence are standing before the prosecution as a -- [inaudible] them for a crime we are perpetrated. in this regard, i would offer my heart felt condolences to the families, fathers, mothers, spouses, who have fallen. praying to god almighty to accept them in his mercy, and to reward them and deem them to have died in his arms and i also pray for the speed recovery of

the injured, our fellow countrymen. i'm taking care of them. providing all means of treatment, wishing them speedy recovery and well being following these unfortunate incidents. the state was the institutions are prepared to hold that referendum and schedule if the answer is positive by the people. the state institutions will be build on the -- [inaudible] if the answer is negative, i will by virtue of responsibility [inaudible] to the constituent asemibring whether by election or election in order draft a new

constitution. i declare it so that all and one wowmentd know that -- would know that i'm not exerdzing an individual authority. the final say will be by the people those who created and safe guarded the revolution and to conclude, i address all the egyptian people one and all, all and each. every egyptian citizens, those who love the country, wishing the well being of the homeland i address them all and call on them to renounce violence and not allow any of us to resort to violence.

there is no necessity to assort the constitution, public property, or political parties premises. this is unacceptable. it is. i call on all the egyptian people to stand up to all of these heinous acts, and not to waste their time in any act of violence. and to those the administrationers, the administrators is secure to you however, as i reintegrated in the past. peaceful demonstration is guaranteed without grip ling production earning -- [inaudible] threatening unsuspected civilian or assaulting public or private property.

or an execution companies, corporation, embassy, ministries, this is not acceptable. we're all marching forward, looking ahead. which i have invited -- [inaudible] i call i call in a friendly atmosphere by the virtue of the law. by all of this we should be move forward. egypt will survive this delem derim that egypt will brave flu this d.a.

llama. i wish you all success and and i urge you to go incorporate in a friendly atmosphere may god save our homeland and may god almighty guide our steps forward and makes -- [inaudible] the national journal hosts a discussion tomorrow morning on the economy and the middle class. the forum -- want to strengthen the economy. live coverage starting at 8:30 a.m. eastern on c-span2. and 7:00 p.m. eastern senator mark warner at the university of virginia for discussion on the legislation to bring highly skilled workers to the u.s. you can see it live on c-span. ! you're watching c spab two with politics and public affairs

weekdays featuring love coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events and every weekend the latest non-fiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get the schedule at the website. and you can join us in the conversation on social media sites. following protests against egyptian president mohammad morsi. an debate on election in muslim countries and leadership changes changes in arab springs. this is just over an hour.

we're going to be asking the question islamist victory unavoidable and essential. this is the motion we'll be debated in the intelligence squared format for request from brian katulis who have done this once already to they had a practice round. they have not had a chance of doing this. i suspect they probably had some so scotchs and talked about ways. let me set the scene. it's time of revolution in the middle east. started with a group seller in

tunisia. that sparked a full revolution in tunisia that toppled a 30-year dictator that spread to egypt and the egyptian revolution was a particular concern to the united states. egypt is -- credible in u.s. policy in the middle east. the u.s. reaction to that revolution was unclear. there were some, of course, that said it was a good thing that this would only lead to democracy. there are others that insisted that host any mubarak what was not an dictator. that's an insult to dictators he spent thirty years securing that grip on power. the revolution in egypt is taken many turns. the muslim brotherhood come to term through the ballot box. it has been marred of late thanks to issued by morsi, the president of egypt, earning him

the twitter on news lee knee or mubarak with a beard. as we look around, we're not sure with the egyptian rev revolution is going. and nor are we sure where some of the other revolutions are going around the region. syria is teetering, jordan is burning with and future is yet to be written. the question is in all of the countries will there be election? will islamists win. will it be one man one vote. or will it be one man one vote one time. with that we are going debate the issue if democracy is the try yufm of the middle east. they are unavoidable and essential. we will have five minutes of opening remarks from each of our panelists today. we will start with reuel marc gerecht and do to rob and bryan from there have q & a from

myself and the audience. the panelists will be allowed two minutes at the tend restate their case and potentially persuade you to believing what they believe. so we'll start with reuel marc gerecht. reuel marc gerecht you may begin. >> [inaudible] i want to thank everybody for coming, and particularly i want to thank my co-panelists here rob and i have been debating this issue for almost a decade. certainly i can say that i don't think i disagreed with him except on this issue. and i particularly have to thank my debating colleague brian katulis from the center of american progress, if does show the left and right can come

together on certain issues. and it's particularly brave for him to be with me. on occasion i have looked at the website at sometimes found there depicted as the son of satan. [laughter] i'm not sure what that makes bryan. but i will just say let's just be frank what we're really talking about here is do you dictatorship to democracy? that's what the resolution is. we know that if you actually have a free vote, right now islamists are always going do do well and probably going to try yum. that may not be the case down the road. right now if you have a free vote they will try yomp. that -- if you believe you have to go down the path some nondictatorial path. you have to open up the road and open up the option of them

trying. now what the opposing side is really saying, i think, is chris brown what we really wanted to have and may be too late. they really still want it. they want to have -- [inaudible] that's what everybody really believed in middle eastern studies is that you're going have the model. you're going have enlightened. the author begannism that grew out of the fashionist young turk movement in the late empire. they were going establish and enlighten and create a new liberalism that eventually would democrat democratic in the middle east. and that you would take the faithful and take and more or less cast them off and replace them. and at the end of the long process muslims would be basically us.

well, you know,let look at turkey. that hasn't exactly turned out so well. .. or their successors will be there. we know that's the most liberal model.

in the arab world, where we hope that kemal is somewhat come out, they should dictatorship, the kings who relay command at the end of that process is still also still not even get close to that. but have been in the arab world is dictatorship produced societies were fundamental in some has become the dominant intellectual force. what happened in the arab world as they produce societies that gave us al qaeda. that's what happened on the dictatorial path. it is absolutely certain that we don't know where the islamist them, fundamentalism is going to have in the middle east. but we should have the decency to actually reflect on our own history and to realize that we shouldn't say to them what westerners themselves to him

about two. you can expect them to be better than we were. if you think about how long it took for us to get where we are today, we should have -- we must have a bit more patience for them. >> well, rob satloff. >> thank you to fdd. it's a pleasure to be here enjoyed my panelists against these two very courageous opponents of others. after jim woolsey's opening comments that essentially put their side of the argument on this side of hitler, stalin and albini. the fact they are even setting up your here is the resolution, if democracy is to try for the middle east, islamic the restart unavoidable and essential.

i am brett opposed those parts of the prison. islamic victory is neither inevitable in her welcome the resolution just. first inevitable. just look at elections throughout the region. historically, is on this trip more than a third of the vote. they don't win. not islamist lose. not islamist divide among themselves. it is not that islamists get more than 50%. they don't. the non-islamists collectively get more than 50%. islamists get less. the divisions in lebanon is islamists are what matters. look at egypt. look at egypt. five elections in the last two years. parliamentary referenda, presidential. the followed mubarak, not islamist and increasingly more

opposed in every single election until the eventual election win with the candidate, so tired by the fact he was mubarak's alter ego, they still got 48.5% of the vote. imagine if they actually had a real independent candidate. they would have one. the numbers clearly support the case that islamist victories are not inevitable as the revolution, unavoidable as the resolution suggests. secondly, the more pernicious part of the argument that they are essential for the idea that it is in fact good, positive, beneficial for these guys, the islamists to win. some say, like reuel, to fight al qaeda we need to hope the islamists to rent. in fact it was safe enough for

absorbed the islamist tendencies and dry up support for the sure violent radicals. this in my view is a fundamental misreading of the islamist project. islamism is an ideology that we should respect with seriousness and respect. i define it as the pursuit of political power with the aim of establishing regimes based on sharia law. it is by its very nature anti-west, anti-democratic come into liberal and anti-peace. it is inimical to ours. this is islamism. it is the opposite of democracy. the people at the source of legitimacy. periodic elections to choose on its representative. the idea that political minority can eventually become the majority. a spec for certain rights, protection for minorities that

goes beyond tolerance and of course the rule of law for judiciary that's independent. today's debate is very simple. again come or not asking whether muslims can be good muslims are democrats. the inserts an emphatic yes. can islamist the democrats? is it essential that when? advocates for attending fidelity to the ideology of their countries to democracy? the answer is an obvious no. my answer, brett dancer in mine are in fact. reuel answer and hope an assertion. we have experienced a spirit a ramp, cause a car sitting in front lebanon, turkey. none of these countries have all the attributes of democracy occurred when islamists are in power. no rotations in power in any. rights are recognized only some of them to varying degrees. and some of them, no free and open elections have occurred in some people are not even

recognizes the source of authority. as long as necessary terrorists? absolutely not. little islamists and other surrender power solicits elections? we simply don't know. if we cannot be confident about the fundamental fact, how can they be confident that their election is essential for democracy. we have no idea whether the first set of elections in egypt and 7000 years is in fact the last set of elections. so let me quote one final citation in closing. from the egyptian muslim brotherhood website before they accomplishable misreading it in to learn the art of western pr. quote, if democracy means people who decide to leave them we accept it. if it means people can change the rules of allah and follow what they wish to follow, it is

not acceptable. that's the heart of the story. it is not the path to democracy. [applause] >> it's getting a little feisty here. by spring up brian katulis. >> thanks. i let the spirit in the feistiness anesthetists. i will bring it back at my child is slightly different. i want to stress three debates. the definitional aspect of what are we talking about, who's winning, how much. pay attention to details. i want to make one more of a policy that get into u.s. policy what we could do. the question of islam and democracy and mother is compatible, which is not over debating here is the persistent sort of charm and if that are

relevant. we see experienced demonstrated around the world. you have many countries in which muslims participate in democracy. you have islamic participate in that system. when we have discussions come especially these days than the turmoil in the middle east we are often narrowly focused on the 20% of the muslim world in six and 10 muslims live in the asia-pacific region we need to keep experiences in mind. think about the depth of their experience. the main point, which we'll agree on is there's nothing inherently antidemocratic about islam in terms of political culture. anything within christianity or judaic. we essentially agree with that point. second, this is very disagree. given the middle east, which i think is football focus on today, the crushing social

demographic, economic political pressure societies are facing, change is coming. i've lived in this part of the world for five years. i go back regularly and support the motion that is currently crafted in part because it's like debating gravity. you see the early result in some, most but not all if you look at libya at the early elections here. to me it seemed like a necessary first stage of this debate, which were seen unfolding and is quite complicated and islamic little forces. some but not almost at the table, try to limit public debate and opened up a and try to impose a model that closes off pluralism. i don't see this image it is a realistic possibility. as we sit here come the clash so since the streets but also largely in politics and judiciary. there's this desire for pluralism and political as ahmet

forces. quite naturally an early stage will be part of that. whether they win majorities are not the main point is it is necessary in the question of avoiding and i don't know. the third point i want to stress towards debate decidedly political islamist forces will be forced to change and i doubt both ideology and policy and this is perhaps the leave the faith, but it is my belief in democratic systems and freedom in a sense that the open debate and pluralism will require an islamists when exposed to the public is opposed to the dark corners of thomas to pay the price, the header price of governing. we'll see this in egypt already in terms of creating jobs and other things. much the same way we'll see some ideologues, sierra ideology tested. >> i thought he was talking about the democrats dare.

>> both ways. but that the main point that political forces, were better ideology is grounded, islam is the system is open. as long as it remains pluralistic will be forced to rescind this in indonesia. in 2002, the largest muslim country got about 41% of the vote. not a majority, but they declined over the last couple of years to 29%. need to keep what are examples of when we talk about what's coming ahead in the middle east because i believe we are in the early stages of transformation and we'll talk about the complex power. a final point i hope we debate a little bit people certainly talk later today. the history of u.s. policy. it's an idea that two years this transition and i would call it arab awakening or arab spring. it's too early to characterize. we've only seen for country see

their leadership change. it's very, very early. but the u.s. at this stage, the debate talks about how we actually adapt and become more nimble to these events. both in terms of how we deal with political islam and all other act or spirit we need to figure out how to judiciously engage support to a key factor, which are talked about here are not islamist forces. if you look at the most recent election results, there's a desire and hunger for diversity. that includes islamist political forces but non-islamists and i would argue our government and nongovernment organization and people in the remain now are not while police. we don't have the capacity to do with this and we can talk about this. but this is ever get the strongest military in the world with intelligence capabilities. this can screw that up is

because the come the case of the ghazi demonstrates. the biggest policy questions, which i hope we debate is how we become more nimble and understand political trends of the society. thanks. [applause] >> thank you very much, brian. dan, you're a. >> first of all, i'm very honored to be here. and particularly honored to be on the panel of just the greatest admiration to be with this mostly distinguished panel. [laughter] with the exception of course is reuel. and now, the austrian physicist, wolfgang pauli used to put down his worst students by saying, you're not even wrong.

[laughter] and that's how i'm inclined to take particularly reuel's comments. i'll spare you because we don't know each other as well. if i say to my son, what is five plus seven and 611, that is wrong. if he says that nana, he's not even wrong. what you just heard from reuel especially as nanette. this is the argument because woody is just essentially done in a very slippery and disingenuous way to say that the choice we face is between secular dictatorship of mopar escapes or other stripes, perhaps assad is democracy. even if it's an islamists is a

democracy. if you cast your mind back to january 2011, when this whole business began in december 2010 with tunisia, you could have made an argument, which would've turned out to be wrong based on the following things. first of all, that the people who are filling the square interior with these marvelous errors like wilco nab in google executives that were on their black theories on whatever they are all socially networked and if progressives. if you're busy reading peep yours like "the wall street journal," you had pundits seem to islamists are late to this party. this whole process is being driven by young progressives who want a more moderate, tolerant, progressive, democratic future

in defense of democracies we really mean it, which is liberal democracy. i didn't see it that way and lo and behold, just like the bolsheviks overtook the mensheviks in overtook lafayette , you begin to see the muslim brotherhood. then the brotherhood offers this promise that it was not going to detest the presidential election. you remember this promise? will not contest the presidential election. you already knew things were going in a very bad way when as soon as they saw the opportunity, they broke. then you have the election. either way here, i very politely disagree with rob satloff, for whom i have real respect and that i think he's somewhat -- [inaudible] -- dramatically underestimates the strength of islamist political parties throughout the

entire middle east. the resolution as we're going to go through this process from the victory of islamist parties is inevitable. >> i agree with him. >> it is inevitable. we move along, we have the election and people say mohammed morrissey is this not an 80 character and no one takes them seriously. holding the real range power is the army, the guy in charge of the going on. then, the rest of the chiefs of staff, but were still extensively wandering away versus democratic mullally and future from our friends in the brotherhood. you have to just love it. when your eternal as life gives you phuket site to one of the 21st and 22nd of november.

you have this incredible story in "the new york times" about how barack obama has established this confidence, trust. mohamed morsi has been minded to engineer the pragmatism the pragmatism in the next day he assumes dictatorial powers by declaring the timing was delicious. the point is this is the way the muslim brotherhood operates and anyone who understands that the brotherhood is out, cleanup adjustment taking could've seen this coming a long, long time ago. the conundrum is this, this is the essence of the problem. if you want to have a democratic process in the middle east, one that represents most of the people, you have to have islamist parties participate in that process. if you want a democratic outcome in the middle east, you have to prevent islamist parties from participating because the first thing they'll do is destroy the

democracy. the conclusion is not going to have a democratic future in the middle east we need to start thinking about alternatives. [applause] >> while now, let's flesh this out a little bit. i'm not going to ask a simple math because we all know the simple answer of fruit. for me to set a couple things. first of all brian, you mention this not an anti-democratic about islam. as a two-year little bit from you and perhaps from rob. i know it probably need to make distinctions between islam and islamism, but this is an important thesis. >> is the first distinction is trying to make that the relation itself around the world when you look get basic facts. the fact that sometimes they're organized he. there's nothing essentialist in terms of islam and democracy

being in compatible. i think this is kind of a quaint debate. we have enough experience out there. i am experienced coastal living in working in the dark ages and democracy for the bush administration put higher on the agenda was that there are sort of a generational coming forward right now it wants to stay in the voice. i know you won't be gone here for long, but i listen it back to remark on democratic political systems. trying to understand what iraqis wanted. they clearly wanted government. islamism was at the forefront of it. the election results where troops are in iraq is your political parties become quite dominant in the political system and even to this day. that is sort of the point.

engaging these different forces and shaking them will be the next stage. they're going to be part of the system that can operate. i'm not saying iraq is all democracy, but there's potential that this new generation that doesn't want this in particular. today's muslim brotherhood leadership is islamism in politics. >> i'd actually disagree with my partner here. in 1807, when the british decided the slave trade was a bad idea never took a one form a support and the ottomans, by the way, at the slave trade in the ottoman empire dwarfed the north atlantic slave trade coming to america. the ottomans responded as any since almost avoided house and as any sensible american southerner would have been 1807 they said have you lost your

mind? slavery is vouchsafed to us by god. slavery was part of the islamic tradition and the christian tradition. it was not something -- it is very clear they allowed slavery. i think it's very clear they are non-democrat. democracy is a western import. the thing to remember is evolution. you will find very few muslims outside of saudi arabia today who believes slavery is vouchsafed by god. there has been a successful alteration of the islamic identity on that issue. i would just suggest democracy is also one of those issues. >> rob, has islam about? >> again, i'm sorry to slightly amend the question. the question is really about muslims, not about islam, the same way the question is not about christianity or judaism.

it's about christians and jewish. it's about how people acted organized themselves politically jewish and christian's in the course of history have themselves how they shall we say rather checkered experience, not only with democracy in general, the self-government were specifically. those of us in the jewish faith in this room know we screwed it up a couple times, self-government and now we're -- >> doing it again. [laughter] >> all be a little bit more generous to say that there's a challenge under way. so muslims are doing with their challenge not a self-government, but how we organize self-government or whether democratic or the supposed can be reconciled with traditional muslim principles. i totally agree with brian that

the vast majority of muslims in the world today in the 21st century have figured out that yes, you can reconcile traditional muslim principles of democratic runcible's. how they do this, successfully, unsuccessfully. ps, they figured it out. does that mean is gone away? absolutely not. it's especially live in a part of the muslim world for arabic society culture and civilization don't. >> romances question. i heard this a few times as the theme, but the notion that once islamists come to power as how they discredit themselves and perhaps ultimately get saddled with the mundane issues of garbage collection and other things and find themselves moderating. is that an inevitability? >> i didn't even get to the crowd. he didn't even make the best possible case you could make for

his own side in that case the sickly amounts if were going to achieve a future in which ms. majority state have rid themselves of these infections, ideological infections of socialism, islamism, baptism, so on, there's no way out is through. they have to experience it themselves. the evidence is to look at what i would guess his 80% of iranians who detest their regime, to test the ayatollahs and the whole system that they've been living under for an entire generation and now you have a majority with no living memory of the shaw who would want to work and to get rid of the system. i'm not exactly sure where that's a strange argument for saying we have to go through islamism in the third 30 years of tierney and threat to the world to get out to the other side. maybe that's true.

>> we only have five minutes here. >> or i don't see this to be the case is the notion that islamists will come to power in state egypt or palestinian authority and people say they didn't collect the garbage associate promised. so in a way that may operate in concord, massachusetts or madison, wisconsin, paul have an election and some other party will say we're going to do a better job of the mundane tasks of governance because that's not what the islamist parties are all about. the ayatollah khomeini said it well in the fact we didn't have a resolution to bring down the price of alan. they're not interested in these mundane speared there's no experience that i'm aware of of an islamist government saying you know what, times times that the new price one and were

walking off the stage. either way, i don't think it's going to happen in turkey either. >> i actually agree with brad. i do not find terribly compelling the arguments to say we're going to pick up the trash. the muslim brotherhood is about virtue. we've yet to see that they are getting egypt and i guarantee you it's coming. that's what she want to see coming. you want to see muslims have in the organic debate they were having around the year 1900 got aborted by the arrival of the leadership. you need to have them have basic sludge -fest amongst people of faith. turbine crowd, it's not the liberals people essentially like us in the middle east who will try though qaeda out. it's going to be people of faith who tried it out. the battle is amongst them. it's not amongst those essentially already asked. >> i'm sorry, but reuel, you

cannot claim people of faith equal the islamists. it's not fair. if you go to egypt today, 80 some 1 million people, nearly all of them will say they are people of faith and the muslim brotherhood on the contrary is a well organized, well disciplined party for six or 800 parties and tentacles around the country that organize and do things well. you cannot say people of faith equal islamists. islamists is an ideology of achieving political power for a political goal, not virtue. >> people of faith, not people who vote for the muslim brotherhood. when liberals, hope you are too defined in and got us to see motley crue in egypt. whenever they want the election to come back and talk to me. >> i want to talk